I’m interested to hear what other players think regarding Halo 5’s campaign and the switching between Osiris and Blue Team perspectives. To be honest, I think it was a mistake to include Blue Team at all, especially considering it was for only a handful of missions. It made it difficult to care/sympathize with Osiris because I just wanted to do it he Chief missions. Probably would’ve made the Osiris/Player relation stronger if Halo 5 had kept the focus on Osiris and unraveling the mystery behind Blue Team and the Guardians (which is what the trailers and such implied would be happening before Blue Team was revealed)
Then in Halo 6, we likely could have done some switching between both teams perspectives. That may happen regardless. Also, did anyone else think it was hilariously out of character the way Chief decided to go AWOL?
(Paraphrasing ahead)
“Another team is looking into Meridian, return to the Infinity Chief.”
“Negative Infinity, I don’t like it.”
Then that was it. He left. What.
Overall, I’ve enjoyed the campaign, though. What about you guys?
At that point, we may as well not call it Halo 5, yeah? Halo: Guardians, or just Halo: Osiris would have sufficed. Some people are already surprised that this is even a numbered title, given how little we see Chief as it is. I wouldn’t be against them giving Osiris their own game, but there’s no reason to give them the entirety of a mainline title.
That said, the mix of this campaign was so off that I felt like they had a difficult time balancing it. Three missions for Chief is shoddy, but as you’ve stated, those Chief missions drag away from Osiris. Very odd set of decisions on their part. I’m (mostly,) satisfied with the end result, but it definitely begs for improvement.
I would’ve liked it if there a squad versus squad battle at least one in the series. But I 100% disagree (respectfully of course :D) with your comment, I honestly thought there should have been WAY more Blue Team play time. I mostly spent my time with Locke wishing that I was moving on with Chief’s story instead
With what we got, yes.
BT should’ve just been is cutscenes and gameplay only for Osiris.
I mean, the first BT mission was just filler. It had nothing to do with the rest of the game and existed just to have 117 learn that bit of info and that’s it.
I didn’t mind the switch-off. I actually really liked Osiris, and I felt that giving more time to them made me appreciate the Blue Team segments even more.
I’m honestly not sure. But I think both Blue Team and Osyris lacked character development- so maybe skipping Blue Team altogether (which is just 3 missions, not a big deal) and giving Osyris more screentime would have been for the best. And maybe it would have ended to the tension between John and Locke, which was a bit lacking, and to the mystery behind the return of Cortana (which kind of just happened in Halo 5).
We’d lose something either way, but the game might have been better for it.
> 2533274813912897;2:
> At that point, we may as well not call it Halo 5, yeah? Halo: Guardians, or just Halo: Osiris would have sufficed. Some people are already surprised that this is even a numbered title, given how little we see Chief as it is. I wouldn’t be against them giving Osiris their own game, but there’s no reason to give them the entirety of a mainline title.
>
> That said, the mix of this campaign was so off that I felt like they had a difficult time balancing it. Three missions for Chief is shoddy, but as you’ve stated, those Chief missions drag away from Osiris. Very odd set of decisions on their part. I’m (mostly,) satisfied with the end result, but it definitely begs for improvement.
I think they should drop the numbering all together, at some point the number becomes pointless.
And where does it say the the main series has to focus on Chief? Are we going to play as him when he’s 80 and using a walker?
As for the balance of the campaign, I agree that 3 Blue vs 12 Osiris was lopsided. It makes me wonder if there were originally more blue team missions but they were cut/saved for Halo 6.
Thanks for the replies! Nice to get your perspectives on it.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Osiris quite a bit, maybe with exception to Vale. If only because me and my brother found it funny she always had to flip and vault over enemies before killing them, lol.
> 2533274813029394;3:
> I would’ve liked it if there a squad versus squad battle at least one in the series. But I 100% disagree (respectfully of course :D) with your comment, I honestly thought there should have been WAY more Blue Team play time. I mostly spent my time with Locke wishing that I was moving on with Chief’s story instead
Maybe that would’ve been a better formula, doing all of Halo 5 from Blue Team’s POV before doing all of Halo 6 from Osiris? Or even vice versa. I would’ve been in favor of Osiris coming to the forefront throughout Halo 5, if nothing else than to keep the mystery and Blue Team’s motivations amped up to the max. They’re still a little ambiguos, but still…
As for the Squad stuff, I feel like they should’ve either gone all the way with squad mechanics or not at all. Like Republic Commando, for example, which really relied on you using/positioning your squadmates well in order to fight past enemies. It doesn’t really suit Halo’s gameplay, so I can see why they didn’t go full on with it.
> 2533274846978810;6:
> I’m honestly not sure. But I think both Blue Team and Osyris lacked character development- so maybe skipping Blue Team altogether (which is just 3 missions, not a big deal) and giving Osyris more screentime would have been for the best. And maybe it would have ended to the tension between John and Locke, which was a bit lacking, and to the mystery behind the return of Cortana (which kind of just happened in Halo 5).
>
> We’d lose something either way, but the game might have been better for it.
Even the exposition they do with Blue Team in the lore expansion after Halo 5 is kind of lackluster. At least in the comic books. I know there was a book with Fred as the protag, but I haven’t read it so I don’t know if it was any good. Halo 5 also has a new lead writer, so that could explain why we don’t get much in the way of character development like Chris Schlef offered us in Halo 4.
> 2533274815779653;7:
> > 2533274813912897;2:
> > At that point, we may as well not call it Halo 5, yeah? Halo: Guardians, or just Halo: Osiris would have sufficed. Some people are already surprised that this is even a numbered title, given how little we see Chief as it is. I wouldn’t be against them giving Osiris their own game, but there’s no reason to give them the entirety of a mainline title.
> >
> > That said, the mix of this campaign was so off that I felt like they had a difficult time balancing it. Three missions for Chief is shoddy, but as you’ve stated, those Chief missions drag away from Osiris. Very odd set of decisions on their part. I’m (mostly,) satisfied with the end result, but it definitely begs for improvement.
>
>
> I think they should drop the numbering all together, at some point the number becomes pointless.
>
> And where does it say the the main series has to focus on Chief? Are we going to play as him when he’s 80 and using a walker?
>
> As for the balance of the campaign, I agree that 3 Blue vs 12 Osiris was lopsided. It makes me wonder if there were originally more blue team missions but they were cut/saved for Halo 6.
I see this age complaint all too often, but something to realize about Halo is that it’s a AAA title being pushed by Microsoft. That means it requires grade A marketing. Numbered titles are often associated with the Chief, and that’s just simply how the cookie crumbles. So if you’re asking who/what says you have to focus on chief with numbered titles, it’s money. Further, it’s the audience. People associate icons with larger franchises. Chief being one of this franchise’s largest icons means people are going to associate him with the series, and especially the mainline entries.
I’m no writer, so I can’t give you any odd literary reason for it, but there’s plenty of reason, whether you or I agree with it or not, for them to feature him as the main character. What’s left though, is up to them. They decide on that, not us.
Nah, then you’d have the forums screaming “WHY CANT WE PLAY AS CHIEF?! 343 SUCKS! HALO IS DEAD HALO IS DEAAAAAAAAAAAAAD SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE” over and over again. I mean it’s like that now, but…i don’t think it’s as bad as when halo 4 released.
I think the problem is that for most of the game Osiris is literally doing nothing. The missions on Sanghelios, while cool, could have been condensed to 1 or two missions. You never really get invested in them because their characters are underdeveloped and you don’t see them grow as a team. Vale is a cool character, Tanaka is a cool character, Locke has the potential to be cool but they wasted an opportunity. The hub worlds could have been a chance to interact with them more but those levels were so small and half baked I’m not even sure why they’re in there.
> 2533274848524080;11:
> Nah, then you’d have the forums screaming “WHY CANT WE PLAY AS CHIEF?! 343 SUCKS! HALO IS DEAD HALO IS DEAAAAAAAAAAAAAD SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE” over and over again. I mean it’s like that now, but…i don’t think it’s as bad as when halo 4 released.
People can handle a game without 117 if they are told from the start.
ODST, Reach, Halo Wars.
> 2533274915926813;14:
> > 2533274848524080;11:
> > Nah, then you’d have the forums screaming “WHY CANT WE PLAY AS CHIEF?! 343 SUCKS! HALO IS DEAD HALO IS DEAAAAAAAAAAAAAD SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE” over and over again. I mean it’s like that now, but…i don’t think it’s as bad as when halo 4 released.
>
>
> People can handle a game without 117 if they are told from the start.
> ODST, Reach, Halo Wars.
True. but still…you’d have a lot of people whining over and over about why chief isn’t in the game…even if he’s just in a cutscene or two.
> 2533274807472927;9:
> > 2533274846978810;6:
> > I’m honestly not sure. But I think both Blue Team and Osyris lacked character development- so maybe skipping Blue Team altogether (which is just 3 missions, not a big deal) and giving Osyris more screentime would have been for the best. And maybe it would have ended to the tension between John and Locke, which was a bit lacking, and to the mystery behind the return of Cortana (which kind of just happened in Halo 5).
> >
> > We’d lose something either way, but the game might have been better for it.
>
>
> Even the exposition they do with Blue Team in the lore expansion after Halo 5 is kind of lackluster. At least in the comic books. I know there was a book with Fred as the protag, but I haven’t read it so I don’t know if it was any good. Halo 5 also has a new lead writer, so that could explain why we don’t get much in the way of character development like Chris Schlef offered us in Halo 4.
The novel is Halo:Last Light and it was SO GOOD. It definitely fleshed out Fred’s character and made me so much more excited to fight alongside him in H5.
I am actually really glad that they included those three missions. Playing through there were times when I was really questioning the Chief and if it was even still the same character, but then it swapped over to blue team and reminded me that this was the same MC we know and love.
> 2533274848524080;15:
> > 2533274915926813;14:
> > > 2533274848524080;11:
> > > Nah, then you’d have the forums screaming “WHY CANT WE PLAY AS CHIEF?! 343 SUCKS! HALO IS DEAD HALO IS DEAAAAAAAAAAAAAD SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE” over and over again. I mean it’s like that now, but…i don’t think it’s as bad as when halo 4 released.
> >
> >
> > People can handle a game without 117 if they are told from the start.
> > ODST, Reach, Halo Wars.
>
>
> True. but still…you’d have a lot of people whining over and over about why chief isn’t in the game…even if he’s just in a cutscene or two.
Given the way each of those listed titles were released, no, you really wouldn’t.